A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Erections during a spanking



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th 05, 08:11 AM
Jennie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erections during a spanking

My son gets tight pants during an over the knee spanking. What should
I do?

Jennie

  #2  
Old August 31st 05, 05:45 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jennie wrote:
My son gets tight pants during an over the knee spanking. What should
I do?


Go to a website or Usenet group more in keeping with your perverions.

Jennie


Thanks for asking, and have a nice day.

  #3  
Old September 9th 05, 11:39 AM
Jennie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


George Orwell wrote:

you are looking at the pictures and reading the accounts of
exactly how children particularly boys were always disciplined.
The only difference is children traditionally were
never actually injured when being spanked and disciplined.


Nonsense, boys were never disciplined by being savaged by dogs. The
level of pain in my spankings is about right, although I do own a set
of canes and use them from time to time. I posted about the erections
he gets during a spanking.

Jennie

  #4  
Old September 18th 05, 05:28 PM
PaulBrozon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Spanking is done by about 90% of all parents, so it is socially accepted.
Yet, keep in mind that even Frued said spanking is sex. If someone is
spanking another beyond puberty, there may be a sexual stimulation
associated with the spanking. Probably a good reason why spanking is not
for children.

  #5  
Old September 18th 05, 07:33 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


PaulBrozon wrote:
Spanking is done by about 90% of all parents, so it is socially accepted.
Yet, keep in mind that even Frued said spanking is sex. If someone is
spanking another beyond puberty, there may be a sexual stimulation
associated with the spanking.


Or it's assault.

Probably a good reason why spanking is not
for children.


Yah mean to tell us yah think chilerin are "sexchual?"

Who'd a thunk.

0;-

  #6  
Old September 26th 05, 10:10 PM
Carlson LaVonne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



PaulBrozon wrote:
Spanking is done by about 90% of all parents, so it is socially accepted.


The percentage is declining, but yes, by the majority of parents in the
US, spanking remains socially acceptable. This doesn't make spanking
children right -- there was a time when slavery was socially acceptable,
as well as a denial of women's rights. Even though it was at a time
"socially acceptable" -- things changed.

Yet, keep in mind that even Frued said spanking is sex. If someone is
spanking another beyond puberty, there may be a sexual stimulation
associated with the spanking.Probably a good reason why spanking is not
for children.


I'd say the best reason why spanking is not for children is because
children should not be legally assaultable. Children are not legally
able to provide consent, as are adults. An adult spanking without
mutual consent would also be legally defined as assault.

LaVonne


  #8  
Old September 29th 05, 04:28 PM
Jennie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He is approaching puberty. I've upgraded his spankings from hand to
wooden hairbrush, which might take some of the excitement out of it for
him.

Jennie

  #9  
Old September 29th 05, 04:35 PM
Jennie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd say the best reason why spanking is not for children is because
children should not be legally assaultable. Children are not legally
able to provide consent, as are adults.


Your first sentence just generalises a bit. Instead of showing that
spanking is not for children, you now have to prove that children
should not be legally assaultable, which is going to be harder to prove
because it is less specific. Otherwise you have to answer the question,
"Why shouldn't children be assaultable?"

Your second sentence also contributes little: consent is not an issue
in this argument: children are spanked without their consent; that's
part of the definition of a spanking. Therefore it doesn't really
matter whether they are able to give consent or not.

Jennie

  #10  
Old September 29th 05, 06:20 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jennie wrote:
I'd say the best reason why spanking is not for children is because
children should not be legally assaultable. Children are not legally
able to provide consent, as are adults.


Your first sentence just generalises a bit.


"generalises?" [sic] There is nothing "general" about the concept that
children are in this county, and not in some other, allowed to be
assaulted and that act not just allowing but in fact protected by law.

The writer opined, as in "I'd say," so that sets the framework as a
generality, but that is all it does. From "the best reason" on it is
quite specific and clear.

In fact, Jennie, the comment ending in "a bit," is itself vague and
"general."

Instead of showing that
spanking is not for children,


It isn't just for children. Adults do it to each other, sans battery,
with consent. You are being deliberately obtuse and evasive.

you now have to prove that children
should not be legally assaultable,


"Prove" a moral concept? I'll prove it for you:

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/stats/index.cfm
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm
http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN...S_General.html
http://www.preventchildabuse.org/lea...t_analysis.pdf

Want to argue these facts above, from the data offered on abuse and
fatalities represent in the majority NOT parental "discipline
attempts," but abuse? Well, that is the point. No one can say for sure
quite where that line of demarcation is between the one and the other.
Can you?

Apparently those that can think, and fortunatly ACT, as some of our
legislators can and will in the future to outlaw this barbarity,
understand how very easy it is to slide into abuse and injury...still
thinking one has only been disciplining a child.

According to the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, "85% of
all cases of physical abuse results from some form of over-discipline
through the use of corporal punishment". According to testimony
submitted to the House of Representatives (E1032--Congressional Record)
March 21, 1991 by Major R. Owens of NY:

"In most cases, fortunately, the physical injuries children experience
are relatively minor -- some redness and soreness of the skin -- and do
not require medical treatment. But the vulnerability of young
children's bodies is such that the potential for causing more severe
injuries is great, including hematomas, ruptured blood vessels, massive
fat emboli, sciatic nerve damage, muscle damage, and brain hemorrhage.
Every year we hear of children across the United States who are
seriously injured and even permanently disabled as a result of corporal
punishment. As Prof. John R. Cryan of the Association for Childhood
Education International noted in a 1987 article:

'Adults plainly underestimate the amount of force they are capable of
producing. Sometimes children are injured during even the mildest
punishment when they jerk away and the blow lands off target, or when
they fall against the sharp edge of some object. Eyes, ears and brains
may be permanently damaged as a result of paddling. Whiplash injuries
may result from shaking. Injuries from blows to the chest and abdomen
are life threatening. Bones are easily fractured and even the slightest
whack may produce a jolt to the brain through the bony spinal column
and spinal cord, resulting in significant swelling or bleeding."

http://www.nospank.net/dutton.htm

which is going to be harder to prove
because it is less specific.


Most all moral concepts, though based on visible unwanted and socially
unacceptable acts, are not "provable" in the sense you are trying to
claim. The fact that something is less specific is of no relevance. A
broken bone is a broken bone. How badly and where in the body matters
little to the victim or society that cares for those victims, and
untimately will likely have to carry that person and pay the price for
some vicious ignorant twit that believed in or supported spanking.

Otherwise you have to answer the question,
"Why shouldn't children be assaultable?"


I have a better one for you. Why are you being so stupid?

The answer to your question, pervert, lies in the answer to this
question...already answered by society: "Why shouldn't *people* be
assaultable?"

So much for your BS.

Your second sentence also contributes little: consent is not an issue
in this argument:


Of course it is. One classification of human can be hit, legally, if
they give consent. Another can't because they are as yet not capable of
giving INFORMED consent. Not legally. Except for the present immoral
laws that allow it.

Just as LAWS once disenfranchised women, and blacks.

children are spanked without their consent;


Obviously. Your point does not support your next argument.

that's
part of the definition of a spanking.


No, it is decidedly not. Spanking is defined by the action, not the
lack or presence of consent. If someone gives another permission to
spank them, spanking itself is of no difference if that spanking is
given without consent. Except of course, for adult on adult spanking
without consent it is battery, and for an adult upon a child,
"discipline."

Therefore it doesn't really
matter whether they are able to give consent or not.


Yes, it very much matters. Just as all the things we do to children
with out their consent matters. Some are humane, caring, and necessary
for the child's health and safety. Battery of a child by legal sanction
is still hitting, as in spanking is hitting. One cannot spank without a
hitting action.

The only thing standing between spanking being battery is the lack of a
law banning it -- or making the current laws on assault and battery
inclusive of children, exclusive of age considerations.

It's coming. Get used to it. Folks with your filthy minded sickness are
insuring it must come.

Just as surely as apologists and slave owners brought about
emancipation.

Jennie


Knowing that you give your child an erection by spanking (this is
obviously a perv troll attempt by you...you get off being taken
seriously) and continuing it is itself punishable NOW by law. It is
child abuse. Sexual abuse in fact, and if there is justice your child
will beat you senseless one day, and have you charged with sexual
abuse, and you'll end up in jail getting your jollies from your fellow
inmates raping you.

0:-

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debate on spanking Doan General 0 June 12th 04 08:30 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 02:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 02:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 8th 03 11:53 PM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 04:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2014 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.